Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Case Series
Full Version
Role of Computed Tomography Chest and Bronchoscopy in the Diagnosis of Endobronchial Masses
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Anil Kumar Kodavala,
G-7, DSR Square Apartment, D. No. 16-13-305, 5th Cross, Haranathapuram, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.
E-mail: anil.kodavala@gmail.com
Endobronchial Masses (EBM) can present with Central Airway Obstruction (CAO). Causes of EBM can be benign or malignant in origin. Malignant endobronchial masses are more common than expected. However, they are underdiagnosed because of their non specific clinical and radiological presentations. The authors present a case series of seven cases of endobronchial growth. Three cases were of squamous cell carcinoma, one was bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, one was a typical carcinoid, and another one was Endobronchial Tuberculosis (EBTB). All were males, and five were above 50 years of age. Breathlessness, cough, wheeze, and haemoptysis were the common symptoms. In three patient diagnoses were delayed as Computed Tomography (CT) chest and bronchoscopy were not done during the initial evaluation. In one of the cases, empiric treatments for pulmonary tuberculosis delayed definite diagnoses of endobronchial growths. In another patient, empiric treatments for pleural tuberculosis delayed the diagnosis of carcinoma of the lung. In one patient empiric treatment with corticosteroids for asthma delayed the diagnosis of EBTB. However, in three patients early CT chest and bronchoscopy revealed the diagnoses of different types of carcinomas of the lung despite acute symptoms. One patient had carcinoma of the lung and EBTB. Early and optimal use of chest CT and bronchoscopy can clinch the diagnoses. Investigation should be done for both EBTB and malignancy in a case of endobronchial growth.
Airway obstruction, Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, Carcinoid, Pulmonary tuberculosis, Squamous cell carcinoma
Endobronchial Masses (EBM) are occasionally seen in clinical practice. The differential diagnoses of an EBM include benign tumors, primary lung carcinoma, endobronchial metastasis of carcinoma from extrapulmonary organs, aspirated foreign body, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1),(2). EBM can cause Central Airway Obstruction (CAO) (3). The prevalence of CAO at the time of diagnosis was 13% (4). Nearly 50% are diagnosed during acute hospital admission (4). Endobronchial Tuberculosis (EBTB), which can cause CAO, is often underdiagnosed (3),(5). The incidence of EBTB ranges from 4.1-20% in Tuberculosis (TB) patients (3). Bronchogenic carcinoma can also occur as an EBM with CAO (6). Patients with lung cancer have CAO in 20-30% of cases and the later is responsible for 40% of their deaths (4). CAO can cause complications like postobstructive pneumonia, atelectasis, and dyspnea (5). Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common primary lung carcinoma presenting as EBM (2). The exact incidence is unknown (7). Carcinoids account for 2% of all lung tumours (1). Adenocarcinoma of the lung with a central location is rare (1),(2). Metastases from extrathoracic malignancies can present as EBM in 1.1% of cases (8). Therefore, the accurate diagnosis of EBM is foremost for specific treatment (8). Because of the non specific clinical presentation of EBM with CAO, early suspicion is the key to diagnosis. This case series discusses seven patients of EBM with diverse clinical, and radiological presentations and central airway obstruction.
Case 1
A 21-year-old male had a dry cough, wheeze, appetite loss, and weight loss for one month. He was treated as an asthmatic elsewhere with bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids. As his symptoms were not relieved, he visited Department of Respiratory Medicine of hospital for a second opinion. His physical examination and Chest Radiograph (CXR) were normal (Table/Fig 1)a. Computed Tomography (CT) chest disclosed multiple tree-in-bud opacities in the Left Upper Lobe (LUL) and mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Bronchoscopy revealed multiple nodules in both main bronchi (Table/Fig 1)b. Biopsy showed a chronic granulomatous infection. The molecular test for tuberculosis of bronchial wash was positive. He was started on category 1 Antituberculosis Treatment (ATT) as per the National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme. His symptoms resolved after one month. He completed the course of ATT. Empirical treatment for asthma delayed the diagnosis by more than a month.
Case 2
A 68-year-old male presented with breathlessness, and a productive cough for six months. At presentation, he was on empiric ATT for five months from elsewhere. As his symptoms were not relieved, he came for a second opinion. His physical examination was normal and his initial CXR showed left costophrenic angle blunting (Table/Fig 1)c. Pleural fluid was exudative. Chest CT showed Right Upper Lobe (RUL) fibro-calcifications with left moderate pleural effusion. Bronchoscopy revealed EBM obstructing LUL bronchus (Table/Fig 1)d. Biopsy disclosed infiltrating keratinised squamous cell carcinoma. He was referred to a medical oncologist, who started him on chemotherapy. But the patient died after one month. Empirical treatment of pleural effusion with antituberculosis drugs resulted in the progression of the disease in this patient.
Case 3
A 35-year-old male presented with breathlessness, productive cough, swelling of the face, neck, and right upper limb, wheezing, appetite loss, and weight loss for two months. He was receiving empiric ATT for one month from a local physician. Despite the treatment as there was no improvement in symptoms, he came to us. On physical examination, tubular bronchial breath sounds were present in the right suprascapular area. CXR showed RUL collapse with an adjacent cavity. On chest CT a soft tissue lesion with abrupt cut-off RUL bronchus and mediastinal lymph nodes compressing the superior vena cava was noticed. Bronchoscopy revealed EBM obstructing RUL bronchus. Biopsy showed squamous cell dysplasia. As the patient was not willing for further investigation, authors could not proceed. Initial empirical treatment with antituberculosis drugs delayed the diagnosis.
Case 4
A 70-year-old male presented with breathlessness, dry cough, and chest pain for 15 days. Stony dullness and absent breath sounds were present on the left side. The CXR showed left massive pleural effusion. Pleural fluid was exudative with Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) of 1995 IU. On chest CT, left lung collapse with abrupt cut-off of Left Main Bronchus (LMB) was seen. Bronchoscopy disclosed EBM extending from the left secondary carina into the LUL bronchus with extraluminal compression of the left Lower Lobe Bronchus (LLB). Biopsy uncovered bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. After knowing the stage of the carcinoma and its prognosis, the patient refused further evaluation and treatment. Here subjecting the patient to an early CT chest with contrast gave the clue to the diagnosis.
Case 5
A 64-year-old male presented with breathlessness and haemoptysis for two weeks. Physical examination was normal. The CXR showed mediastinal widening (Table/Fig 2)a. On further evaluation with CT chest displayed an irregular growth extending from distal Right Main Bronchus (RMB) with abrupt cut-off RUL bronchus and centrilobular nodules in RUL. Bronchoscopy revealed a pedunculated EBM in RMB occluding 80% of the lumen (Table/Fig 2)b. Biopsy unveiled well-differentiated keratinised squamous cell carcinoma. The Patient was referred to a medical oncologist for further management. Early bronchoscopy in this patient, guided us to the diagnosis.
Case 6
A 53-year-old male presented with breathlessness, haemoptysis, and chest pain for seven days. Physical examination and CXR were normal (Table/Fig 2)c. CT chest was planned because of haemoptysis. Chest CT showed a well-defined enhancing soft tissue density in RMB extending into the right intermediate bronchus. Bronchoscopy revealed EBM, which bled on touch, extending from the posterior wall of RMB into the right intermediate bronchus partially obstructing the lumen (Table/Fig 2)d. Biopsy disclosed typical carcinoid. The patient was referred to a cancer hospital for further management. In the evaluation of haemoptysis, doing CT chest and bronchoscopy despite normal chest radiograph helped in clinching the diagnosis.
Case 7
A 54-year-old male presented with breathlessness, productive cough, wheeze, and chest pain for two months. He was on treatment for diabetes. Right suprascapular harsh breath sounds were noted on physical examination. CXR showed RUL consolidation. Chest CT displayed multiple thick-walled cavities in bilateral upper lobes with centrilobular nodules and mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Bronchoscopy revealed pale EBM partially occluding RMB. Biopsy uncovered well-differentiated keratinised squamous cell carcinoma. A molecular test for TB of bronchial wash was positive. This supports the simultaneous occurrence of EBTB and carcinoma of the lung.
As many malignant and non malignant EBM can cause CAO, it is essential to determine the etiology of an EBM. Predicting the diagnosis just based on clinical symptoms and their duration is not suggestible (9).
Clinical symptoms are non specific and depend on the location, size of EBM, and severity of CAO (9). This is supported by our study as the duration of clinical symptoms of our study patients ranged from one week to six months. One patient had stage 4 bronchioloalveolar carcinoma despite the duration of symptoms being 15 days. Wheeze is one of the clinical features of EBM. Treating patients with wheezing as obstructive airway disease without further evaluation can delay the diagnosis. For instance, one of the above patients (case 1) was treated with inhaled and systemic corticosteroids for asthma. But on evaluation with CT chest and bronchoscopy, EBTB was confirmed by the molecular test.
Even though CXR is the first line of imaging for the evaluation of respiratory symptoms, it is non specific (3). In a symptomatic patient, despite a normal chest X-ray, a CT chest may give clues to diagnosis. Especially, contrast-enhanced CT chest may give information about the location, extent of the lesion, the degree of CAO, and involvement of great vessels and lymphnodes (3). The series supports this, as three of the patients had near-normal CXR. But CT chest gave important information about the diagnosis. The biopsy usually provides a definite diagnosis. Bronchoscopy is good at this. Sometimes lesions that are not obvious in CT chest can be identified by bronchoscopy. One of the patients (case 1) has multiple endobronchial nodules on bronchoscopy, which were not identified in the CT chest. Occasionally EBM may require repeat biopsies due to areas of necrosis and overlying fungal colonisation (10).
Empiric therapies are common in respiratory medicine practice. But this approach not only delays the detection of endobronchial masses but may also result in a poor prognosis. One of the patients (case 2) was treated for pleural tuberculosis. By the time the definite diagnosis was made, his clinical condition deteriorated and he died before starting chemotherapy.
In the era of evidence-based medicine, even in TB endemic countries like India, empirical treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis and obstructive airway diseases must be discouraged. As the median survival of patients with CAO was 3-8 months, a delay in diagnosis may result in morbidity (4). Two of the above patients were treated with empirical ATT elsewhere. On further evaluation, they confirmed squamous cell carcinoma. This stresses the importance of CT chest and bronchoscopy in the evaluation of respiratory symptoms. Clinical history, physical examination, and chest radiograph are non specific. CT of the thorax and bronchoscopy are crucial for a conclusive diagnosis (3).
Malignancy is a potential cause of EBM even in TB endemic countries. Avoid empirical therapies for asthma and TB, particularly in patients above 50 years. Consider chest CT and bronchoscopy wherever necessary irrespective of findings of CXR. The CT chest and bronchoscopy are complementary to each other. Evaluate for both carcinoma and EBTB, in the case of EBM, as co-existence is a possibility.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/58029.16934
Date of Submission: May 25, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 17, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 13, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 28, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 12, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 17, 2022 (6%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com